[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [IFWP] IDNO letter
Esther Dyson wrote:
> Dear Joop and colleagues -
> I'm writing to respond personally to your proposal for an Individual Domain
> Name Holders' Constituency.
Thank you, Oh Great Queen of the Internet.
> As you know, the Initial Board decided not to
> consider it in Berlin because it was not among the seven constituencies we
> hoped to see form to constitute the full DNSO.
But more concretely, because you had tricked everyone into believing
that the Non-commercial constituency would be a place where
end-users' interests could find expression.
> At this point, we are still
> hoping to approve conditionally the last of the seven original
> constituencies, and allow the process of enlarging the board to move > forward.
As soon as you feel assured that the NCDNHC has been cleared of
every element that might oppose your policies.
> That means that the Initial Board won't be considering your petition this
> time either, since we're still working on the first seven.
You are not the Initial Board. You are an impostor and a liar. And
the reason you won't recognize the IDNO's petition is because you
fear, and rightly so, the inclusion in ICANN of any person who sees
clearly through your imposture and might upset your plans.
> Let me say personally that I am not totally comfortable with this
> decision. Given that the At-Large Membership is not yet constituted, > I think it important that individuals' concerns have some
> representation within the DNSO.
You have done everything in your power to keep that from happening.
You have delayed the formation of the At-Large membership, helped
CORE and ISOC push the ICIIU and its supporters out of the NCDNHC,
and refused recognition of the only constituency - IDNHC - with a
democratically-formed base and democratic methods for
decision-making. Your unconscionable lies convince no one of the
> However, there are two other points worth noting.
> First is that the representativeness of the IDNO is still questionable; it
> faces many of the same challenges of outreach and breadth that the ICANN
> Initial Board faces in trying constitute its At-Large membership. Creating
> the IDNO now may be a way of avoiding rather than solving this problem.
The IDNHC is better formed, larger, more representative than any
other of the present constituencies. Once again, you apply criteria
selectively in order to cover up your real motives and accomplish
your sectarian ends. You are the worst sort of hypocrite.
> Second, I am more concerned that the voices and interests of individuals be
> *represented* in the work of the DNSO, than with precisely how that happens.
The inconsistencies in what you have written here, as compared to
what you wrote above, are so glaring that even the most ignorant
camp-follower of ICANN cannot avoid being ashamed to be associated
> Although the process is certainly messy, the concerns of individuals and
> individuals' rights are now being heard within the DNSO working groups -
> although perhaps not as effectively as they should be.
What individuals? Javier Sola? Ken Stubbs? Richard Lindsay? Ted
Shapiro? Jonathan Cohen? Not one of the people deciding DNSO policy
is a representative of the individual end-users whom you were
empowered by our government to serve.
> Making sure that
> that process works is where I think we should be focusing our attention
> right now.
You have done everything to ensure that the "process" works, but
only for you and CORE and ISOC and the INTA. That is why you have
denied any place for the end-users in your organization, and why you
refuse to recognize the IDNHC.
Michael Sondow I.C.I.I.U. http://www.iciiu.org
Tel. (212)846-7482 Fax: (603)754-8927